Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Freer on the New General Jurisdiction

Rich Freer (Emory) has posted on SSRN a draft of his article, Four Specific Problems with the New General Jurisdiction, which will be published in the Nevada Law Journal. Here’s the abstract:

General in personam jurisdiction allows a court to enter judgment against a defendant regarding a claim that did not arise in the forum. Traditionally, based upon International Shoe (1945), courts have exercised general jurisdiction over corporations based upon their "continuous and systematic" activities in the forum. In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) and Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014), the Supreme Court has restricted general jurisdiction by making it available only where the defendant is "at home" (a notion apparently never adopted by any state court as a proxy for general jurisdiction). 

Goodyear and Daimler were easy cases. The lower courts' exercise of general jurisdiction in each was risible. Instead of simply reversing the efforts, the Court decided several issues it did not need to decide and upset accepted understanding of activities-based general jurisdiction. Because the Court has never explained why we have general jurisdiction, it failed to explain why the new restriction is needed or appropriate. 

This article focuses on four specific problems created by the new jurisprudence: (1) the Court unnecessarily prohibits general jurisdiction based upon sales into a forum, which will hamper growth of jurisdictional doctrine in Internet cases; (2) by ignoring corporate activities, the Court ignores the sorts of corporate contact that would be analogous to human domicile, which, the Court says, is the paradigm of "at home"; (3) by rendering activities-based general jurisdiction practically impossible and (4) by inexplicably jettisoning the "fairness factors" of International Shoe in general jurisdiction cases, the Court exacerbates its parsimonious view of specific jurisdiction by denying judicial access to American plaintiffs injured by foreign corporations. 

Though some restriction of general jurisdiction may have been appropriate, it should have been measured and well-tailored to the underlying purpose of general jurisdiction. The Court's recent effort is not.

 

 

September 17, 2014 in Recent Scholarship, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, August 18, 2014

Hastings Law Journal Symposium on Atlantic Marine

We covered earlier the upcoming Hastings Law Journal symposium on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court. It will take place in San Francisco on Friday, September 19th. Here’s an announcement/invitation with more details:

You are cordially invited to attend a symposium on Atlantic Marine v. U.S. District Court, a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last Term that held forum-selection clauses to be enforceable under Sec. 1404(a)'s authorization of venue transfer. The symposium, co-sponsored by UC Hastings and Hastings Law Journal, will bring renowned scholars from across the country to discuss the importance of the decision and its implications for civil litigation. Up to 3.5 hours of California MCLE credit is available. Free and open to the public, the symposium will be held at UC Hastings College of the Law, 198 McAllister St., in the Louise B. Mayer Room from 1:00-4:30pm on Friday, September 19, 2014. A reception for all attendees will immediately follow. Register here: http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/symposium/.

Download HLJ Symposium Flyer

 

 

August 18, 2014 in Conferences/Symposia, Federal Courts, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Cert Grant on Issue Preclusion in Trademark Case

The Supreme Court has granted cert in a trademark infringement case involving a collateral estoppel issue.  The questions presented in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352, are:

(1) Whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding of a likelihood of confusion precludes respondent from relitigating that issue in infringement litigation, in which likelihood of confusion is an element; and (2) whether, if issue preclusion does not apply, the district court was obliged to defer to the Board’s finding of a likelihood of confusion absent strong evidence to rebut it.

Hat tip: Professor Ira Nathenson, who also explained that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is not an Article III court, and that the nature of Likelihood-of-Confusion inquiries can vary between the TTAB and the District Court.

July 3, 2014 in Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, June 30, 2014

SCOTUS Cert Grant on Appellate Jurisdiction: Gelboim v. Bank of America

While everyone waits with bated breath for the Supreme Court to wrap up the current Term with decisions in Hobby Lobby and Harris, the Court granted certiorari in Gelboim v. Bank of America (No. 13-1174). From the cert petition, here is the question presented (with the usual wind-up):

The question “whether consolidated cases retain their separate identity or become one case for purposes of appellate jurisdiction has divided the courts of appeals.” United States ex rel. Hampton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 318 F.3d 214, 216 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “Some circuits hold that consolidated cases remain separate actions and no Rule 54(b) certification is needed to appeal the dismissal of any one of them. Others treat consolidated cases as a single action, or presume that they are, allowing the presumption to be overcome in highly unusual circumstances. Still other circuits apply no hard and fast rule, but focus on the reasons for the consolidation to determine whether the actions are one or separate.” Id. (citations and alterations omitted). This Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict in Erickson v. Maine Central Railroad Co., 111 S. Ct. 38 (1990) (mem.), but the petition was subsequently dismissed, 111 S. Ct. 662 (1990) (mem.).

The Question Presented is:

Whether and in what circumstances is the dismissal of an action that has been consolidated with other suits immediately appealable?

Here is SCOTUSblog’s Gelboim case file, and here is the link to the Supreme Court docket

 

 

 

June 30, 2014 in Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

SCOTUS Upholds Basic v. Levinson, But Gives Halliburton A Partial Victory

In the latest Supreme Court round of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., the Court declined Halliburton's invitation to overrule Basic v. Levinson,  but remanded to allow Halliburton, at the class certification stage, to attempt to rebut the presumption that the alleged misrepresentations actually affected the price of the stock.  The Court's final two paragraphs:

More than 25 years ago [in Basic], we held that plaintiffs could satisfy the reliance element of the Rule 10b–5 cause of action by invoking a presumption that a public, material misrepresentation will distort the price of stock traded in an efficient market, and that anyone who purchases the stock at the market price may be considered to have done so in reliance on the misrepresentation. We adhere to that decision and decline to modify the prerequisites for invoking the presumption of reliance. But to maintain the consistency of the presumption with the class certificationrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, defendants must be afforded an opportunity before class certification to defeat the presumption through evidencethat an alleged misrepresentation did not actually affect the market price of the stock.


Because the courts below denied Halliburton that opportunity, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Some coverage of the case:

New York Times

Wall Street Journal

June 24, 2014 in Class Actions, Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, June 20, 2014

SCOTUS: IRS Summons Challenger Must Show Facts Giving Rise to Plausible Inference of Improper IRS Motive

The IRS examined the tax returns of Dynamo Holdings Limited Partnership, and issued summonses to the respondents, "four individuals associated with Dynamo whom the Service believed had information and records relevant to Dynamo’s tax obligations.  None of the respondents complied with those summonses."  

The IRS instituted proceedings in District Court to compel the respondents to comply with the summonses.  The IRS submitted an investigating agent’s declaration that the testimony and records sought were necessary to “properly investigate the correctness of [Dynamo’s] federal tax reporting” and that the summonses were “not issued to harass or for any other improper purpose.”  In reply, the respondents pointed to circumstantial evidence suggesting that the IRS had “ulterior motives” for issuing the summonses: to “punish[] [Dynamo] for refusing to agree to a further extension of the applicable statute of limitations,” and to “evad[e] the Tax Court[’s] limitations on discovery.”  Accordingly, the respondents asked for an opportunity to question the agents about their motives.

The District Court ordered the respondents to comply with the summonses.  The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that a simple “allegation of improper purpose,” even if lacking any “factual support,” entitles a taxpayer to “question IRS officials concerning the Service’s reasons for issuing the summons.”

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, vacated the Eleventh Circuit's opinion and remanded, holding that the Eleventh Circuit had applied an incorrect legal standard:

A person receiving an IRS summons is . . . entitled to contest it in an enforcement proceeding. . .  .  As part of the adversarial process concerning a summons’s validity, the taxpayer is entitled to examine an IRS agent when he can point to specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith.  Naked allegations of improper purpose are not enough: The taxpayer must offer some credible evidence supporting his charge.  But circumstantial evidence can suffice to meet that burden; after all, direct evidence of another person’s bad faith, at this threshold stage, will rarely if ever be available.  And although bare assertion or conjecture is not enough, neither is a fleshed out case demanded: The taxpayer need only make a showing of facts that give rise to a plausible inference of improper motive.  That standard will ensure inquiry where the facts and circumstances make inquiry appropriate, without turning every summons dispute into a fishing expedition for official wrongdoing. . . .  But that is not the standard the Eleventh Circuit applied. . . .  [T]he Court of Appeals viewed even bare allegations of improper purpose as entitling a summons objector to question IRS agents.

United States v. Clarke, No. 13-301 (U.S. June 19, 2014).

June 20, 2014 in Discovery, Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases, Twombly/Iqbal | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Supreme Court Allows Subpoenas on Banks With Argentina's Accounts

In the continuing worldwide drama over Argentina's 2001 debt default, Argentina loses another round.  Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842 (U.S. June 16, 2014).  Its creditor, NML Capital, which Argentina owes about $2.5 billion, has pursued postjudgment execution on Argentina's property since 2003.  In 2010, NML subpoenaed two nonparty banks, Bank of America and an Argentinian bank with a branch in New York City.  The subpoenas sought documents relating to accounts maintained by Argentina. 

Argentina and BoA moved to quash the BoA subpoena (the Argentinian bank just didn't comply), and NML moved to compel.  The district court granted the motion to compel, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court also affirmed, rejecting Argentina's argument that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act prohibited discovery of Argentina's extraterritorial assets.  Before its discussion of the FSIA, the Court discussed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure -- Rule 69 -- that is rarely, if ever, mentioned in first-year civil procedure casebooks.  (Hint, hint, casebook authors!)  The Court noted that "[t]he rules governing discovery in postjudgment execution proceedings are quite permissive," citing Rule 69(a)(2), which allows a judgment creditor to take discovery "from any person -- including the judgment debtor -- as provided in the rules or by the procedure of the state where the court is located."  The Court assumed without deciding that "in a run-of-the-mill execution proceeding [one where the judgment debtor is not a foreign state] . . . the district court would have been within its discretion to order the discovery from third-party banks about the judgment debtor's assets located outside the United States."

The question was thus whether the FSIA required a different result when the judgment debtor was, in fact, a foreign state.  The FSIA, passed in 1976, confers two kinds of immunity on foreign states, jurisdictional (which Argentina waived) and execution immunity, which immunizes property in the United States of a foreign state from attachment and execution, with some exceptions.  

"There is no third provision forbidding or limiting disocvery in aid of execution of a foreign-sovereign judgment debtor's assets," notes Justice Scalia for the majority.  "[T]he reason for these subpoenas is that NML does not yet know what property Argentina has and where it is, let alone whether it is executable under the relevant jurisiction's law."   The Court also dismissed concerns about international relations, suggesting that such an argument was better addressed to Congress.

Justice Ginsburg dissented.  Justice Sotomayor took no part.      

   

June 17, 2014 in Discovery, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, International/Comparative Law, Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 30, 2014

Symposium & Call for Abstracts: Forum Selection After Atlantic Marine

The Hastings Law Journal seeks submissions for a symposium on forum selection after Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court. The symposium, co-sponsored by the Journal and by UC Hastings College of the Law, will be held at UC Hastings in San Francisco on Friday, September 19, 2014.

Topics may include -- but need not be limited to -- analyses and implications of the Supreme Court’s decision, the sources of law governing forum selection, and issues of private control of litigation more generally. Accepted essays will be published in the Journal in 2015, and invited participants will receive assistance with travel and lodging expenses. Practitioners and others working in the field are welcome to attend.

Abstracts of 2-4 pages should be sent to hlj@hastingslawjournal.org no later than Monday, June 23. Authors of accepted essays will be notified in the first week of July, and completed drafts must be submitted for circulation to symposium participants by Friday, September 5.

Questions regarding the symposium should be directed to the organizers, Stephen Sachs (sachs@law.duke.edu), Brad Shannon (bshannon@fcsl.edu), and Scott Dodson (dodsons@uchastings.edu).

 

 

May 30, 2014 in Conferences/Symposia, Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

SCOTUS Decision in Wood v. Moss: Guidance on Pleading Standards?

Today the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Wood v. Moss, with Justice Ginsburg authoring the opinion for the Court. As covered earlier here, Wood v. Moss is a Bivens case brought by plaintiffs who had been protesting against President George W. Bush during his 2004 visit to a restaurant in Oregon. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants, who were secret service agents, violated their First Amendment rights by moving them farther away from the President than a similar group that was expressing support for the President.

In today’s decision, the Court unanimously rules that the defendants are protected by qualified immunity. To most, this conclusion did not come as a surprise. For many proceduralists, however, the case was of particular interest because of its potential effect on pleading standards in the wake of Twombly and Iqbal. Here’s how Justice Ginsburg puts things in footnote 5: “In ruling on a motion to dismiss, we have instructed, courts ‘must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true,’ but ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).” And on page 12: “[U]nder the governing pleading standard, the ‘complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ Iqbal, 556 U.S., at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted).”

Part II.B of the opinion contains the most detailed discussion of qualified immunity and its requirement that a plaintiff’s claim be based on a right that was “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” [p.12]. Among other things, Justice Ginsburg writes:

“No decision of which we are aware ... would alert Secret Service agents engaged in crowd control that they bear a First Amendment obligation to ensure that groups with different viewpoints are at comparable locations at all times. ... No clearly established law, we agree, required the Secret Service to interfere with even more speech than security concerns would require in an attempt to keep opposing groups at roughly equal distances from the Pres­ident. And surely no such law required the agents to attempt to maintain equal distances by prevailing upon the President not to dine at the Inn. [pp.14-15 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)]”

Part III of the opinion addresses a potentially distinct theory of liability, and that part of the opinion may prove more instructive on pleading standards generally. Part III begins: “The protesters allege that, when the agents directed their displacement, the agents acted not to ensure the President’s safety from handguns or explosive devices. Instead, the protesters urge, the agents had them moved solely to insulate the President from their message, thereby giving the President’s supporters greater visibility and audibility.” [pp.15-16] Justice Ginsburg does recognize the possibility that “clearly estab­lished law proscribed the Secret Service from disadvantag­ing one group of speakers in comparison to another if the agents had no objectively reasonable security rationale for their conduct, but acted solely to inhibit the expression of disfavored views.” [p.16 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)] She rejects this theory, however, noting that a map of the relevant area that the plaintiffs had included in their complaint “under­mines the protesters’ allegations of viewpoint discrimination as the sole reason for the agents’ directions”; the map “corroborates that, because of their location, the protesters posed a potential security risk to the President, while the supporters, because of their location, did not.” [p.16]

Although the plaintiffs “make three arguments to shore up their charge that the agents’ asserted security concerns are disingenuous,” [p.16] Justice Ginsburg is not persuaded. In particular, she writes:

“[A]s the map attached to the complaint shows, see supra, at 4, when the President reached the patio to dine, the protesters, but not the sup­porters, were within weapons range of his location. See supra, at 14. Given that situation, the protesters cannot plausibly urge that the agents had no valid security reason to request or order their eviction.” [p.18 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)]

One of the many questions that has vexed courts, commentators, and practitioners after Twombly and Iqbal is how to evaluate allegations about a defendant’s intent. Although the 2002 decision in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema suggested a very lenient approach to such allegations, many have read Iqbal – which also involved allegations of discriminatory animus – to require a stricter approach. At first glance, Wood does not seem to provide a conclusive resolution. Although the Court rejects the plaintiffs’ viewpoint-discrimination theory, Justice Ginsburg relies heavily on the fact that material in the complaint itself – the map of the relevant area – “undermines the protesters’ allegations of viewpoint discrimination as the sole reason for the agents’ directions.” [p.16] This is not likely be a regular occurrence in cases involving discriminatory intent. Another feature of Wood may be even more important. Given Justice Ginsburg’s reasoning regarding qualified immunity, the plaintiffs would have had to show that “the agents had no objectively reasonable security rationale.” [p.16] Part III of the opinion, therefore, did not hinge on the premise that viewpoint discrimination played no role at all in the defendants’ decision; rather – as a matter of the substantive law governing the defendants’ qualified immunity defense – the presence of an objectively reasonable security rationale doomed the plaintiffs’ claims even if viewpoint discrimination also played a role.

PS: Readers may have noticed Adam Liptak’s recent New York Times article describing how Supreme Court opinions can be revised by the Justices after they are initially issued – sometimes years later. For what it’s worth, then, I’m including in this post not only the relevant link to the opinion on the Supreme Court’s website, but also a downloaded version of the opinion as it originally appeared there this morning:

Download Wood v Moss (May 27 2014)

 

 

 

May 27, 2014 in Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases, Twombly/Iqbal | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Guest Post: Brunet and Parry on Tolan v. Cotton

Ed Brunet and John Parry (Lewis & Clark) present the following guest post:

The growing list of summary judgment skeptics should find much to  like in Monday’s Tolan v. Cotton decision.  In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit decision that had affirmed a grant of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity in a section 1983 case.  Although the decision of the Supreme Court turns largely on substantive civil rights law, Tolan is surprisingly instructive regarding summary judgment mechanics.  The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower courts had not weighed inferences in favor of the nonmovant regarding the substantive element of whether the alleged excessive force used by the defendant police officer violated  “clearly established rights,” and it asserted that the “judge’s function at summary judgment  is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”

Some of the basic facts are undisputed.  This case involved a police officer’s 2 a.m. stop of a car that had “turned quickly” onto a residential street.  The decision to stop followed the officer’s keying in the wrong license number into his computer and incorrectly thinking that the car was stolen.  The arresting officer drew his pistol and ordered the two men in the car to the ground. When the parents of plaintiff Tolan emerged from the front door of the house where the car had parked, the officer stated that he believed that the two men had stolen the car and the excited parents pointed out that they owned the vehicle and the house.  The mother’s continued protestations caused officer Cotton, a new arrival on the scene who also had his gun drawn, to order her to stand against the garage door.

The  evidence was clearly conflicting regarding what happened to Tolan’s mother.  Tolan presented evidence that his mother was grabbed by the arm by officer Cotton and slammed to the ground with such force that bruising, confirmed by photos, occurred. Cotton denied slamming her into the garage and contended that he was escorting her, she “flipped her arm up and told him to get his hands off her.”  This scene ended when Tolan stated, “Get your fucking hands off my mom,” to which Cotton responded by firing three shots at Tolan, causing liver and lung damage.  A dispute of facts exists as to whether Cotton had pushed Tolan’s mother against the garage door, and whether Tolan was standing or had risen to his knees when shot. There was also a dispute about the quality of lighting at the front of the house.

The lower court opinion resolved the factual issues against Tolan, stating “his shouting and abruptly attempting to approach Sergeant Cotton inflamed an already tense situation; in the light of his actions at the scene, a genuine dispute of material fact does not exist regarding whether Sergeant Cotton acted objectively unreasonably.” The Supreme Court, in turn, chastised the Fifth Circuit for “failing to credit evidence that contradicted some of its key factual conclusions” and for “a clear misapprehension of summary judgment standards in light of our precedents.”

It is tempting to assess this case as a major summary judgment decision.  After all, this is the first summary judgment victory in the Supreme Court for a civil rights plaintiff in some time.  The rhetoric used by the Court is a time-worn cliché, namely that “at the summary judgment stage, reasonable inferences should be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.”  This is hardly new law. Its use in a per curiam opinion summary reversal arguably signals a major change in attitude. But, it may be that all the Supreme Court is doing here is correcting a grievous error.  It seems almost impossible not to find disputed issues of fact on this record, as Judge Dennis observed in his dissent from rehearing en banc.  If the Court had let the lower court decision stand, the error would win the day.  Yet, if that had been all the Court wanted to accomplish, it could have simply vacated and remanded to the lower courts with instructions to weigh inferences in favor of the nonmovant, without detailing the facts and the Fifth Circuit’s errors.

At the very least, the per curiam decision should embolden courts to identify disputed facts.  Further, citing the landmark 1987 Anderson v. Creighton opinion – a case which typically is invoked against plaintiffs, not against defendants –  Tolan reminds lower courts that the clearly established right at issue needs to be examined in “the ‘specific context of the case’” in order to avoid “import[ing] genuinely disputed factual propositions.”

Justice Alito concurred joined by Justice Scalia.  He noted the unusual posture of  the case in which the Court both granted a petition for certiorari and vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment.  (Will Baude also comments on this aspect of the concurrence here.)  He stresses that this was a typical summary judgment dispute over “whether the evidence in the summary judgment record is just enough or not quite enough to support a grant of summary judgment.”  Alito goes on to conclude that the Court of Appeals “invoked the correct standard here.” The use of the word “standard” appears questionable.  The directed verdict standard is the only standard used in summary judgment, replacing the old “doubt” standard of many circuits. More later!

May 8, 2014 in Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Supreme Court Approves Amendments to Hearsay Rules

Professor Colin Miller's EvidenceProf Blog reports on the Supreme Court's approval of amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence that deal with hearsay: 801(d)(1)(B) (prior consistent statements), and 803(6), (7), and (8) (burden of proof in showing untrustworthiness of records of regularly conducted activities and public records).  The amendments will take effect on December 1, 2014 unless Congress takes other action.

May 3, 2014 in Supreme Court Cases, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

SCOTUS Decisions in Octane Fitness and Highmark: Awarding Attorney's Fees in Patent Cases

Today the Supreme Court issued unanimous decisions in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness (No. 12-1184) and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Management Systems, Inc. (No. 12-1163), two cases on fee-shifting in patent cases. Both opinions were authored by Justice Sotomayor.

The Octane Fitness opinion begins:

Section 285 of the Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney’s fees in patent litigation. It provides, in its entirety, that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U. S. C. §285. In Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F. 3d 1378 (2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “[a] case may be deemed exceptional” under §285 only in two lim­ited circumstances: “when there has been some material inappropriate conduct,” or when the litigation is both “brought in subjective bad faith” and “objectively base­less.” Id., at 1381. The question before us is whether the Brooks Furniture framework is consistent with the statu­tory text. We hold that it is not. [Slip Op., p.1]

Rather, as Justice Sotomayor explains:

[A]n “exceptional” case is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District courts may determine whether a case is “excep­tional” in the case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances. As in the comparable context of the Copyright Act, “‘[t]here is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations,’ but instead equitable discretion should be exercised ‘in light of the considerations we have identified.’” Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U. S. 517, 534 (1994). [pp.7-8 (footnote omitted)]

And here’s how the Highmark opinion begins:

We granted certiorari to determine whether an appellate court should accord deference to a district court’s determination that litigation is “objectively baseless.” On the basis of our opinion in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., ante, p. ___, argued together with this case and also issued today, we hold that an appellate court should review all aspects of a district court’s §285 determination for abuse of discretion. [Slip Op., p.1] 

 

 

 

April 29, 2014 in Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 7, 2014

SCOTUS Cert Grant in Dart Cherokee v. Owens: What Must a Notice of Removal Include?

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens (No. 13-719). Here is the question presented that appears in the cert. petition (like many cert. petitions these days, it includes a few paragraphs of prologue before the “question” is “presented”)…

A defendant seeking removal of a case to federal court must file a notice of removal containing “a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” and attach only the state court filings served on such defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Consistent with that statutory pleading requirement, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits require only that a notice of removal contain allegations of the jurisdictional facts supporting removal; those courts do not require the defendant to attach evidence supporting federal jurisdiction to the notice of removal. District courts in those Circuits may consider evidence supporting removal even if it comes later in response to a motion to remand.

Here, in a clean break from Section 1446(a)’s language and its sister Circuits’ decisions, the Tenth Circuit let stand an order remanding a class action to state court based upon the district court’s refusal to consider evidence establishing federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because that evidence was not attached to the notice of removal. (That evidence, which was not disputed, came later in response to the motion to remand.)

The question presented is:

Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is alleging the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?

More information about the case is available at SCOTUSblog.

 

 

 

April 7, 2014 in Federal Courts, Recent Decisions, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

SCOTUS Cert Grant: FRCP 52 and Patent Cases

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (No. 13-854). Here is the question presented: 

Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in matters tried to a district court, the court’s “[f]indings of fact ... must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.”

The question presented is as follows: 

Whether a district court's factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires (and as the panel explicitly did in this case), or only for clear error, as Rule 52(a) requires.

More info available at SCOTUSblog.

 

April 1, 2014 in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Today's SCOTUS Oral Argument in Wood v. Moss

Here’s the transcript of today’s Supreme Court oral argument in Wood v. Moss. It’s a Bivens case brought by plaintiffs who had been protesting against President George W. Bush during his visit to a restaurant in Oregon. They allege that the defendants, who were secret service agents, engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by moving them farther away from the President than a similar group that was expressing support for the President.

The crux of the defendants’ position is that they are protected by qualified immunity, but the case could have ramifications for pleading standards more generally. The argument included quite a bit on Iqbal, and there were several questions about the discovery that would likely ensue if the claims were allowed to move forward.

PS: Here is an analysis of the oral argument by Lyle Denniston (SCOTUSblog).

 

March 26, 2014 in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supreme Court Cases, Twombly/Iqbal | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Today's SCOTUS Decision in Lexmark v. Static Control: Some Interesting Bits on Standing and Iqbal

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision today in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. It’s principally a Lanham Act case, but Justice Scalia’s opinion has some interesting discussion on Article III standing, prudential standing, and whether Congress has (or has not) authorized a cause of action [See Part II, pp.6-9]. Justice Scalia recognized that the plaintiff in Lexmark had Article III standing based on its “allegations of lost sales and damages to its business reputation.” [p.6] Although the parties had “treat[ed] the question on which we granted certiorari as one of ‘prudential standing,’” he found this “misleading.” [p.6] Instead, he explained [p.9]:

[T]he question this case presents is whether Static Control falls within the class of plaintiffs whom Congress has authorized to sue under §1125(a). In other words, we ask whether Static Control has a cause of action under the statute.4 That question requires us to determine the meaning of the congressionally enacted provision creating a cause of action. In doing so, we apply traditional principles of statutory interpretation. We do not ask whether in our judgment Congress should have authorized Static Control’s suit, but whether Congress in fact did so. Just as a court cannot apply its independent policy judgment to recognize a cause of action that Congress has denied, see Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286–287 (2001), it cannot limit a cause of action that Congress has created merely because “prudence” dictates.

Footnote 4 states:

We have on occasion referred to this inquiry as “statutory standing” and treated it as effectively jurisdictional. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 97, and n. 2 (1998); cases cited id., at 114–117 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). That label is an improvement over the language of “prudential standing,” since it correctly places the focus on the statute. But it, too, is misleading, since “the absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., the court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.’ ” Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 642–643 (2002) (quoting Steel Co., supra, at 89); see also Grocery Mfrs. Assn. v. EPA, 693 F.3d  169, 183–185 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting), and cases cited therein; Pathak, Statutory Standing and the Tyranny of Labels, 62 Okla. L. Rev. 89, 106 (2009).

There’s also a footnote that mentions Iqbal [footnote 6, on p.15]: 

Proximate causation is not a requirement of Article III standing, which requires only that the plaintiff ’s injury be fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct. Like the zone-of-interests test, see supra, at 8–9, and nn. 3–4, it is an element of the cause of action under the statute, and so is subject to the rule that “the absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction.” Steel Co., 523 U.S., at 89. But like any other element of a cause of action, it must be adequately alleged at the pleading stage in order for the case to proceed. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–679 (2009). If a plaintiff ’s allegations, taken as true, are insufficient to establish proximate causation, then the complaint must be dismissed; if they are sufficient, then the plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity to prove them.

 

March 25, 2014 in Federal Courts, Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (1)

Monday, March 10, 2014

New Cert Grant on Statute of Limitations in Class Action

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MDS, Inc.

Question presented:

Issue: Whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, to satisfy the three year time limitation in § 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members.

SCOTUSblog has a post on the case.

March 10, 2014 in Class Actions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, March 3, 2014

New Grants of Certiorari

SCOTUS has granted the petitions for certiorari in the following cases of interest to proceduralists:

Warger v. Shauers:

Issue: Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonest during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty.

Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund:

Issue: Whether, for purposes of a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77k, a plaintiff may plead that a statement of opinion was “untrue” merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, as the Sixth Circuit has concluded, or must the plaintiff also allege that the statement was subjectively false – requiring allegations that the speaker’s actual opinion was different from the one expressed – as the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have held.

March 3, 2014 in Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, March 1, 2014

SCOTUS Holds SLUSA Does Not Preclude State-Law Class Action

The Supreme Court, in Chadbourne & Parke LLC v. Troice, in an opinion by Justice Breyer, held that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 did not forbid "a class action in which the plaintiffs allege (1) that they 'purchase[d]' uncovered securities (certificates of deposit that are not traded on any national exchange), but (2) that the defendants falsely told the victims that the uncovered securities were backed by covered securities."

An analysis of the opinion is on SCOTUSblog here.

March 1, 2014 in Class Actions, Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

SCOTUS Decision in Walden v. Fiore: More on Personal Jurisdiction

Today the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Walden v. Fiore. The case is a Bivens action against an officer involved in seizing cash that the plaintiffs were carrying through the Atlanta airport. Justice Thomas’s unanimous opinion begins: “This case asks us to decide whether a court in Nevada may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant on the basis that he knew his allegedly tortious conduct in Geor­gia would delay the return of funds to plaintiffs with connections to Nevada.” The answer? No. From the final paragraph:

Well-established principles of personal jurisdiction are sufficient to decide this case. The proper focus of the “minimum contacts” inquiry in intentional-tort cases is “‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’” Calder, 465 U. S., at 788. And it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State. In this case, the application of those principles is clear: Petitioner’s rele­vant conduct occurred entirely in Georgia, and the mere fact that his conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdic­tion.

Here are some highlights from the opinion:

 

Continue reading

February 25, 2014 in Recent Decisions, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)